PDA

View Full Version : Rifle receiver only transfer and BB


seainc
01-27-2012, 2:19 PM
Does BB still needed if only rifle receiver in the transfer? Thanks

mej16489
01-27-2012, 2:26 PM
Not an FFL.

Is a receiver a center-fire semi-automatic rifle? No - so it can't be an 'Assault Rifle'

seainc
01-27-2012, 2:39 PM
Receiver is HK SR9 and MR556. Thanks

Hank Dodge
02-08-2012, 7:22 AM
As I understand it, the BB should be the first part installed and the last part removed to be in compliance with the laws. A bare receiver ( casting only ) does not require a BB to be transfered. Once any of the lower parts are installed, then the BB and a ten round mag must be in place.

tenpercentfirearms
02-08-2012, 8:05 AM
As I understand it, the BB should be the first part installed and the last part removed to be in compliance with the laws. A bare receiver ( casting only ) does not require a BB to be transfered. Once any of the lower parts are installed, then the BB and a ten round mag must be in place.

Nope. Not correct.

You cannot have a semi-automatic centerfire detachable magazine rifle and any one of the evil features.

So if you don't have an upper on a complete lower, it isn't a rifle since it isn't semi-automatic nor centerfire.

You only need a Bullet Button when it is a complete rifle. Lowers stripped or complete are not rifles.

seainc
02-08-2012, 8:41 AM
Just curious, why CA DOJ did not give approval to the maker of BB and Raddlock? But we are using it anyway.

tenpercentfirearms
02-08-2012, 1:21 PM
Just curious, why CA DOJ did not give approval to the maker of BB and Raddlock? But we are using it anyway.

In the early days approval of such devices would have encouraged their use. So giving no opinion left room for FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) to spread and discourage sales.

Now that Colt is even offering a Bullet Button model, the FUD is hard to spread and everyone is selling EBRs.

EBR Works
02-09-2012, 6:08 AM
I'll beg to differ with you on this one. The lower receiver is "the rifle" in the eye of the law, it is what is registered. The upper is simply a component part where the AR platform is concerned. The lower once completed is considered a semi-automatic weapon as it stands; and with the pistol grip installed, it requires a bullet button and a ten round mag. I don't agree with this, but that is how we need to process these in compliance with state law. If there is no pistol grip, then you might have a good arguement....

Sorry, you are incorrect. The assembled receiver could have a rimfire upper potentially attached which requires no BB. It could also be featureless, which requires no BB. You're confusing Federal law with California law. You are correct that the receiver is the firearm as ATF defines it. The BB is only required in California for a centerfire, detachable mag firearm with evil features, which a bare or complete receiver is not.

tenpercentfirearms
02-09-2012, 6:16 AM
I'll beg to differ with you on this one. The lower receiver is "the rifle" in the eye of the law, it is what is registered. The upper is simply a component part where the AR platform is concerned. The lower once completed is considered a semi-automatic weapon as it stands; and with the pistol grip installed, it requires a bullet button and a ten round mag. I don't agree with this, but that is how we need to process these in compliance with state law. If there is no pistol grip, then you might have a good arguement....

Sorry, but this is incorrect. And here is why you are incorrect.

http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS_308-Upper.html

Now you could argue it is still a semi-automatic because it self ejects the round, but it certainly can't hold anymore than one round and so it definitely doesn't have any magazine at all. A rifle with this upper, would not require a Bullet Button.

And as EBR correctly pointed out, if you put a rimfire upper on your rifle, it also does not require a Bullet Button.

Finally, there is this little memo from the ATF about what constitutes a "rifle" which also directly contradicts your theory.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=271019

If it has never had a rifled bore on it, it is not a rifle for the purposes of creating a pistol. If it currently does not have a rifled bore on it, it isn't a rifle for the purposes of being a semi-automatic centerfire rifle for sure especially since you don't know if it is going to receive a centerfire or rimfire upper or even a shotgun upper.

Further long guns are not registered.

Also further you say if it doesn't have a pistol grip you might be good, but you forgot about a collapsible buttstock which according to your theory would make it illegal.

The good news is now you can start bringing in complete lowers without Bullet Buttons and you are good to go. If you have any issues with this from any of the alphabet agencies, please contact CGF or CALFFL and we would be more than happy to talk to the agents and inform them of the law.

CSACANNONEER
02-09-2012, 6:18 AM
I'll beg to differ with you on this one. The lower receiver is "the rifle" in the eye of the law, it is what is registered. The upper is simply a component part where the AR platform is concerned. The lower once completed is considered a semi-automatic weapon as it stands; and with the pistol grip installed, it requires a bullet button and a ten round mag. I don't agree with this, but that is how we need to process these in compliance with state law. If there is no pistol grip, then you might have a good arguement....

A stripped VIRGIN lower is a "firearm" but not a rifle until it has been configured as such. This is the way that ATF&E has interpeted the law in recent opinion letters it has sent out. Also, to point out other problems with your post, "rifles" or even receivers which have been DROSed as long guns are NOT REGISTERED in the first place. An assembled lower is NOT a semi automatic firearm until a semi automatic upper is on it. This is easy to prove to you since there are bolt action uppers. Also, if your interpetation was true, one could not do a SSE on an AR lower because, it would be a SA instead of a single shot gun. Finally, even with a PG and adjustable stock on an assembled lower, it does not need a magazine lock because, it is not a "semi automatic" nor is it a "centerfire rifle". It could have a rimfire semi auto upper on it. Hell, even with a +16" upper and NO shoulder stock on it, it is NOT a "semi automatic handgun" or a "semi automatic RIFLE" under California law.

I really suggest you study the law a little more before trying to give advice.


DAMN YOU WES! You beat me to the punch.

tenpercentfirearms
02-09-2012, 7:01 AM
I really suggest you study the law a little more before trying to give advice.

DAMN YOU WES! You beat me to the punch.

I wouldn't be too hard on him. Dealers who are left to read these things for themselves might take a more cautious approach and rightfully so. Hopefully we have shared enough information with him to help him realize that that isn't the case and so if he wants to order a bunch of LMT complete lowers without Bullet Buttons (which I have been doing for at lesast 3 years now), that is perfectly legal as long as a fixed magazine device is on the firearm before a centerfire upper is installed.

It took us a few years to get people to realize that and do what they do now. So it should be expected that a few people still don't know and need to be educated.

CSACANNONEER
02-09-2012, 7:34 AM
No interpretation needed. Read and follow the law as it is written without making things up or trying to put common sense in places where it was never ment to be.

Does the dealer you work for really think that all long guns are registered in California? If so, I would not listen to any of his opinions on laws.

EBR Works
02-09-2012, 7:58 AM
Hank,

The misunderstanding that receivers need to be equipped with BBs causes many suppliers and dealers to follow this procedure. Let's not allow this misinformation to continue. Tell your boss about this thread please.

EBR Works
02-09-2012, 9:52 AM
Simply, there is no constructive possession for parts that would considered an AW if assembled in California.

EBR Works
02-09-2012, 10:25 AM
I don't want to drift this thread, but your comment leads me to ask a question for clarification sake. Is a receiver of a "banned by name" rifle (such as Colt Sporter ) not considered an AW by that definition if it is not assembled to an upper? Just asking because I was obviously misinformed about the other issue.

Thanks

This has been discussed at length. It is a defensible scenario, but don't be a test case.

Hank Dodge
02-09-2012, 10:43 AM
This has been discussed at length. It is a defensible scenario, but don't be a test case.

OK...That's what I thought. I was just confused by your statement and thought that things might have changed there as well.

kemasa
02-09-2012, 11:35 AM
I would say that if the firearm, which an AR lower is, is banned by name, it does not matter anything else. It is not required to be a center-fire, semi-auto firearm PLUS the banned name to be banned. If you look at the flowchart, the question of whether it is semi-auto comes after the check for the name.

Unless you have a lot of money to spend on lawyers, it is best to not go there.

CSACANNONEER
02-09-2012, 1:14 PM
There is no law against having a semi auto centerfire handgun on a banned rifle lower. The law is pretty clear about this but, I'm not in a position to invest in defense funds to prove it.

CSACANNONEER
02-11-2012, 6:25 AM
"To make matters more interesting, a complete receiver often contains a trigger group. And the trigger group for a semi-automatic rifle is obviously different from the trigger group for a fully automatic rifle. And even though we can use the trigger groups for semi-automatic rifles with single-shot or bolt-action uppers, the trigger group for a receiver that is dedicated to single-shot or bolt-action uppers would be different; for one, it would not require a disconnect. SO it is easy to make an argument that the receiver contains a semi-auto trigger group."

I believe this must be the reasoning that My employer conducts transfers in the way that he does.


ATF has recently ruled that even fully assembled lowers with stocks attached but, without ever having an upper mated to them can be built into legal handguns (on a federal level - California DOJ has not issued any opinion on our state's stand on this matter). Therefore, even with a SA FCG and a stock on an AR lower, it is not legally a "rifle". So, it can't be a "semi auto rifle".

ke6guj
02-11-2012, 8:46 AM
ATF has recently ruled that even fully assembled lowers with stocks attached but, without ever having an upper mated to them can be built into legal handguns (on a federal level - California DOJ has not issued any opinion on our state's stand on this matter). Therefore, even with a SA FCG and a stock on an AR lower, it is not legally a "rifle". So, it can't be a "semi auto rifle".

And ATF has even said that if that fully assembled lower with a stock attached is CA DROSed as a long gun, that federally, it can still be built into a pistol without being a violation of federal law.

That a long gun DROS does not federally taint the lower into being a rifle IF it has never physically assembled as a rifle, that it wouldn't be considered a federal SBR. CA SBR laws may still vary.

ke6guj
02-11-2012, 9:03 AM
I would say that if the firearm, which an AR lower is, is banned by name, it does not matter anything else. It is not required to be a center-fire, semi-auto firearm PLUS the banned name to be banned.

chainsaw covered it. per the PC, a named AR is only banned when it is an actual semi-automatic firearm, and additionally, must be a rifle.

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles:
(5) Colt AR-15 series.


A stripped AR15 receiver is not a semi-automatic rifle. A factory Colt AR-15 pistol, if they made one, is not a semi-automatic rifle. However, this is not a recommended scenario.




If you look at the flowchart, the question of whether it is semi-auto comes after the check for the name.since I was the one who added the semi-auto question to the flowchart, I can comment on that. Since doing the above is not recommended, I did not feel it was neccessary to include that in the flowchart, for that and a couple others reasons. It would have made the flowchart even more complex, having to link the YES answers from #4 and #5 back into #8, but since this is a RIFLE flowchart, why would you even be trying to process a stripped receiver (that is not a rifle) through it, let alone run a pistol through it?


Unless you have a lot of money to spend on lawyers, it is best to not go there.
agreed. but just because it isn't recommended doesn't mean that it isn't legal.